Subject: RE: PMP> Indexing option for prtAlertGroupIndex to identify funct ion

From: "McDonald, Ira" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 13:13:34 -0800

Hi,

Sorry I've had no bandwidth to look at this stuff, Stuart
and Ron.

But, it is NOT 'hrDeviceID' (an OID), but 'hrDeviceIndex'
(an integer) that is the high-order index in Printer MIB
tables.

Cheers,
- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: [email-masked] 
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Stuart Rowley
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 12:44 PM
To: Bergman, Ron
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: PMP> Indexing option for prtAlertGroupIndex to identify
function

Hi Ron,
 
Your description of the indexing is appropriate; however, there is still no
mention of prtAlertGroupIndex which is the same as the index of prtInput,
prtChannel, etc. but in the Alert, prtAlertGroupIndex is what allows the
management app to identify which function the alert is relating to. I think
completely leaving prtAlertGroupIndex out of this text is a mistake.
 
I am also concerned about this sentence: The index position to be used is
the least significant index, not the position occupied by hrDeviceID.
I think hrDeviceID should not be introduced here without further
clarification. We discussed the use of hrDeviceID as an alternative method
for distinguishing the function, but it does not relate to the use of the
index position at all, so I think this is just confusing. If we mention
hrDeviceID, it should be a separate paragraph saying why using the
hrDeviceID for the scan function is not an acceptable alternative for
determining the function that an alert is related to. It is not clear to me
what "The index position to be used is the least significant index," is
trying to convey. Are you saying that for a prtChannel relating to the fax,
the index should start with 24576 rather than say 25000? Is this necessary
to state?
 
prtCovers should be prtCover.
 
Thanks,
 
Stuart
 
Stuart Rowley
Network Product Mgr.
Kyocera Technology Development
1855 Gateway Blvd. #400
Concord, CA 94520
[email-masked]
V: 925.849.3306
F: 925.849.3399

From: Bergman, Ron [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 4:05 PM
To: Stuart Rowley
Subject: RE: PMP> Indexing option for prtAlertGroupIndex to identify
function
 
Hi Stuart,
 
I made some modifications to your text.  I thing there is still a
misunderstanding regarding the index this grouping applies to.  Review this
part carefully.
 
11  Appendix A   Suggested Indexing Method  (Informative)
For the MFD subunits that are represented in the common alert groups of
prtMediaPath, prtInput, prtChannel, prtConsole, prtCovers,
systemGeneralTransformer, systemGeneralOutputChannel, and
systemGeneralSupply, there may be no information to indicate the MFD
function associated with the alert.
To allow an application implementation to easily determine the functional
device that is associated with an alert, it is recommended that table index
groups be assigned to each device.  The index position to be used is the
least significant index, not the position occupied by hrDeviceID.  For
example, in the prtMediaPath group, this applies to prtMediaPathIndex.
Although the exact grouping may be implementation dependent, the following
grouping is strongly suggested to provide interoperability between MFDs and
management applications.
It is recommended all MFDs assign table index values from 1 to 16383 (0x0001
to 0x3FFF) to the printer, the values from 20480 to 24575 (0x5000 to 0x5FFF)
are to be assigned to the scan device and the values from 24576 to 28671
(0x6000 to 0x6FFF) are to be assigned to the fax device.
 
Let me know if you agree.
 
    Ron

From: Stuart Rowley [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 12:02 PM
To: Bergman, Ron
Subject: RE: PMP> Indexing option for prtAlertGroupIndex to identify
function
Ron,
 
I remember Ira saying recommended was too strong, but I kind of don't get
that. This is in a never never land of not being normative, but on the other
hand if everyone uses different ranges, then management apps make wrong
assumptions. The only reason not to use recommended in my opinion is due to
a special meaning of recommended in "standards-ese". 
 
Thanks,
 
Stuart

From: Bergman, Ron [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 11:56 AM
To: Stuart Rowley
Subject: RE: PMP> Indexing option for prtAlertGroupIndex to identify
function
 
Thanks Stuart, looks good.  I hope to be able to get back to this later in
the week.
 
You probably missed some of the discussion, Ira indicated that "recommended"
was too strong (?) and indicated a requirement.  We agreed to use
"suggested" instead.  Whatever...
 
Too bad you missed the meeting with Ira actually present.  He is an
interesting character.
 
    Regards,
    Ron

From: Stuart Rowley [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 12:00 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Bergman, Ron
Subject: PMP> Indexing option for prtAlertGroupIndex to identify function
Ron,
 
I took a stab at new text for section 7 Recommended Indexing Method.
 
Ira suggested that it should not be normative and should therefore be in an
appendix. I wasn't sure how to handle whether the ranges are recommended or
just an example. If there is no explicit agreement on the ranges, then a
management app has no idea of the special meaning of the index. Therefore,
"recommended" seems appropriate to me. I expanded the ranges because Ira
said that some device implementations may bump into the previous range
limits.
 
Appendix (x) - prtAlertGroupIndex Indexing Option
The various MFD functions share some common alert groups, such as
prtMediaPath, prtInput, prtOutput, prtChannel, prtConsole, prtCover, etc.,
For alerts in these common alert groups, there may be no information which
indicates the MFD function affected by the alert. The recommended method to
allow a management application to associate an alert with a specific device
function is to assign index ranges to each device function. The following
prtAlertGroupIndex index ranges are recommended; index values from 1 to 255
(0x0001 to 0x00FF) may be assigned to the print function, index values from
256 to 511 (0x0100 to 0x01FF) may be assigned to the scan function, and
index values from 512 to 767 (0x0200 to 0x02FF) may be assigned to the fax
function. Note that this method does not indicate when a common group alert
affects multiple device functions. For example, an open cover may affect the
print, fax, and scan functions, but only one prtAlertGroupIndex is used. 
 
For the alert groups that are specific to one MFD function, such as
faxDeviceGeneral or scanDeviceScanner, prtAlertGroupIndex indices may be
assigned normally, i.e starting at index 1.
 
Best regards,
 
Stuart
 
Stuart Rowley
Network Product Mgr.
Kyocera Technology Development
1855 Gateway Blvd. #400
Concord, CA 94520
[email-masked]
V: 925.849.3306
F: 925.849.3399

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.28/518 - Release Date: 11/4/2006